Friday, 28 May 2010

On both the BBC News Channel and Sky News this morning, we had at least 15 minutes of 'reporting' from outside a Bradford court, which involved their on-the-scene reporters saying nothing new over live pictures of the back of police van. When the van moved slightly, the camera crews ran to find a better position, before moving back to where they started when the van moved again.

And all this for a completely unrevealing two second (at most) glimpse of a person in a hoodie who could have been absolutely anyone.

Allegations of cannibalism were last night refuted by senior investigators who said there was "absolutely no evidence" of such an act in any of the cases.

So why did the Sun splash 'cannibal' all over the front page? Do we really need sensationalism in such a story?

Every paper was trying to find their own angle. The Star's was particularly notable:

'I survived the Ripper'. The obvious impression the Star's front page was trying to give was that Griffiths is the 'Ripper', he's guilty and they have spoken to someone who had a narrow escape from him.

Based solely on the say-so of the mother, it was claimed the driver, who had a Polish or Eastern European or dodgy-foreign-sounding accent, was offended by the two-year-old wearing one of those 'banned' England football shirts. It's political correctness gone mad, etc.

The following day, the Star and the Mirror repeated this tale (along with countless other websites and forums), based solely on the word of the Mail.

"As time has gone we have reached the conclusion that the incident did not happen.

"We have not been able to find any credible witnesses. And we have not been able to confirm the identity of the driver at the centre of the allegation.

"We belive it to be highly unlikely that it happened. If this is the case that is extremely concerning to us. It's not only damaged our reputation, but could have put our staff in danger through potential reprisals."

We have carried out a full investigation and can't find any evidence to substantiate this claim. No driver fitting the description given was working on any routes in this area at that time. Our buses were busy around the time yet no one else has been in touch with us about this alleged incident.

We expect the highest level of professionalism from our drivers and such an act would not be tolerated. However, in this instance it now appears that no such incident took place.

Here's the thing: this statement has been in the public domain for two days.

And yet neither the Mail, Star or Mirror have deemed it necessary to inform their readers' about it.

So either they don't want to correct their earlier story, and look like they may have got something wrong, or they are happy to let the myth of banned England shirts rumble on because it suits their PC-gone-mad, Britain-under-attack-from-foreigners agenda.

Yes, in 2007, he made a prediction about the make-up of the Government after the election and now claims he got it right.

He predicted:

A Labour Government, or

A Tory Government, or

A Lib-Lab pact, or

A Lib-Con pact

Brilliant! Next he'll be telling us that this year's Ashes will be won by England. Or Australia. Or it'll be a drawn series and England will keep the urn.

He added at the time that whoever was in power was going to be full of dodgy Lefties but, as Angry Mob points out:

Considering that Peter is about as far to the right as you can get, it also isn’t much of a bold prediction that whoever got into power would be – according to Peter - ‘in thrall to Left-wing ideas’...[he] considers pretty much everything apart from his own column to be evil left-wing drivel.

Lucas informed the media that he did not want to discuss the matter and asked for his privacy to be respected.

However, the Daily Star published a story alleging that Lucas had been put on suicide watch and that he had met a new boyfriend and chosen to move on.

"Such claims are wholly without foundation, and publishing these false claims at this time considerably aggravated the hurt and distress caused by the article," [Lucas' solicitor John] Kelly told the high court.

He added that the newspaper had also published an article speculating that the reason for the couple's divorce was McGee's use of cocaine.

The Express Newspapers:

offered its sincere apologies for invading his privacy and for the distress caused.

That sincerity would be more believable if they'd thought about that before rushing to print.

Saturday, 22 May 2010

As anyone with a Facebook account already knows, a depressingly large number of people believe the 'PC brigade' is planning to ensure no one steps inside a pub while wearing an England shirt for the entire duration of the World Cup, if not for all time.

None of them seem to have been much thought as to whether this was either true, likely, or even possible.

A spokesman said: "This letter contains a series of suggestions to make pubs safer for everyone.

"However, licensees are not obliged to follow our advice and there is no policy to stop the wearing of England shirts."

And an Inspector from West Midlands Police also denied there was any ban on flags:

"It is nonsense. Police officers are football fans too and patriotism should be an important part of enjoying the tournament in a fun and friendly atmosphere as long as people are sensible."

What is frightening is not just that people still manage to get whipped up by believing an obviously bogus story in the Sun, but that it unleashes a streak of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim sentiment despite it being both untrue and nothing to do with either group.

The resulting effect of this libel was immeasurable, and Ms. Margolis was forced to issue legal proceedings against Independent News & Media Ltd.

These proceedings have now come to a conclusion and substantial damages have been offered to Ms. Margolis for the distress and impact to her reputation, both personal and professional, that this libel caused.

Some newspapers have selectively quoted a few results in this research that suggest a significant link, but this is misleading in the context of the overall results. The researchers themselves explain these few anomalous results, and conclude that there are no conclusive signs of an increased risk of brain tumours.

Overall, this study does not provide evidence that mobile phones cause cancer, a finding echoed by the majority of studies on the matter, although sadly not by most newspapers.

Not only are these headlines overhyped and misleading, but the stories themselves are slightly confusing, combining the launch of a clinical trial with newly published results from a completely different area of research...

While cancer vaccines and immunotherapy are very exciting areas of research that we’re actively involved in funding, this story itself does not represent a ‘huge leap’ forwards.

Using such language is at best misleading and at worst cruelly raises false hopes in cancer patients and their families.

So, far from being pointless, this appears to have been the Mail settling a score, splashing Hollingsworth's alleged marital problems on the front page as revenge for his audacity in challenging them for printing a lie four years ago.

It wasn't just a worthless piece of garbage, it was a worthless, vindictive piece of garbage.

The pettiness and spite of that - and of waiting so many years to do it - reveals much about the sheer bloody nastiness of Paul Dacre and the Daily Mail.

Still, whether newsworthy or not, at least if the Mail put it on the front of their paper, they were sure the story was absolutely correct.

It was reported today that Kimberley Stewart-Mole is now in a lesbian relationship, having left her husband Mike Hollingsworth. We have been informed and accept Ms Stewart-Mole is not a lesbian or in a relationship with a woman and apologise for suggesting otherwise.

Tuesday, 18 May 2010

It's 92 pages long but one part of the survey they conducted stands out: which news source do people trust the most?

Only 34% of people said they trusted what they see in newspapers, compared with 66% who trusted radio news and 54% TV news.

Moreover, that 34% was overshadowed by the 43% who disagreed that they could trust what they saw in newspapers. The percentages who said they didn't trust TV (24%) and radio (15%) news were significantly smaller:

The timing of this report is excellent because tomorrow sees the publication of the PCC's Annual Report. No doubt they will try and pretend that the PCC and the newspapers in this country are all wonderful - as they do every year.

For example, in 2008, the PCC had a record number of complaints - 4,698 - which was an increase of 8% on 2007.

We are confident that it is not a sign of dramatically falling standards in the industry, but of increased awareness and accessibility of the PCC.

They may be 'confident' of that, but who else is?

Who really thinks an increase in complaints is a result of the PCC doing such a good job?

That's a quite bafflingly blinkered view of the current state of affairs.

When compared with TV and radio news, newspapers are - by a considerable amount - the least trusted. Sadly, the PCC's failure to act against the worst excesses of the press make this almost inevitable.

Monday, 17 May 2010

I liked it. I liked the fact two smart, well-educated YOUNG guys were standing there talking about the 'new politics' and telling us the job of putting Britain back together was starting right there and then.

I liked their energy, their vibrancy, their determination...

if the result is change, if together Cameron and Clegg can modernise British politics, if the result of all this is that Britain becomes a better, more stable, more solvent place, then how that can be bad?

Don't you feel rejuvenated and refreshed by the winds of change that could well come back and blow our houses down, but which for now are blowing away the cobwebs and the detritus of 13 years of New Labour?...

We can keep banging on about self-interested, power-mad politicians or we can look at what's happening with optimistic eyes - and give it a chance.

the Lib Dem pipsqueaks who - whatever they claim their principles and policies to be - are actually just gagging for power.

So whichever 'bribes' suit them best, whoever promises them the most clout to help run this country - and YOUR lives - is who they'll cuddle up to.

Are you scared yet? You should be.

But if the Lib Dems DO go with the Tories what does it say about THEM and their high and mighty principles - not to mention Cleggy, who you can bet your sweet life will end up with a nice little cabinet job out of all this.

Take the most recent obsession with party leaders' wives. It's bad enough Labour's spin doctors are desperately trying to canonise Sarah Brown. But now, with just weeks to go before the election, David Cameron has dreamily announced that wife Sam is his 'secret weapon.'

It's also no coincidence Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has now taken to dragging his very attractive wife Miriam around by the hand (her other hand shamelessly brandishing her 'eco' bag made from bottle tops) as if to say: 'If I can bag a stunner like this I'm more interesting than you all think.'

I'm sorry, Sarah, Sam, Miriam - all very nice women I'm sure - but frankly who gives a flying fig what they think about anything? We're not voting for THEM.

And just to make her position on the wives absolutely clear, she added:

I refuse to be patronised by spin doctors trying to con us into believing that if these men are married to great women there's obviously more to them - a softer, more loving, more caring side - than we're seeing on the political stage.

Alas, this week:

And talking of progress, doesn't it gladden your heart to see that that both Cameron and Clegg are married to bright, progressive career women - because it says much about what kind of men they are and how they think.

So two months ago, Malone hated politicians trying to con her into thinking the type of woman they are married to said something about them.

Now, she finds it heart-warming that David and Nick are married to women such as Samantha and Miriam because that says much about what kind of men they are.

Clearly, most people wouldn't go to Carole Malone's column for intellectual rigour, but is a bit of consistency too much to ask for?

Friday, 14 May 2010

The huge earthquake that hit Haiti earlier in the year saw tens of thousands of people killed and injured, hundreds of thousands left homeless and several highly-populated areas were wrecked, including the capital city.

Good job the Sun is sensitive enough to reflect the magnitude of that without resorting to racist stereotypes.

In an article we published on our website in October 2008, we alleged that Barry George had been paying an excessive and worrying interest in the Sky TV presenter Kay Burley. We accept that those allegations were false. We take this opportunity to apologise to Mr George for any upset and hurt he felt.

What both these payouts show is that all these newspapers believed they knew better than the courts. Despite his acquittal, they were determind to smear George and continued to imply he was guilty after all.

The story is this: Ellesmere Port Catholic High School has organised a trip to a local mosque for its Year 9 pupils. They were told, in a letter helpfully published by the Mail:

Pupils will be expected to wear full school uniform. As you can appreciate the Mosque has a strict dress code, all girls must have a skirt that is over the knee and must wear a headscarf (a simple scarf that covers the head will suffice).

Does a Catholic school's uniform, with a simple scarf over the head added, really sound like pupils were being forced to 'dress as a Muslim'?

'Everyone should respect the religion of others but to expect a pupil to dress up to this extent is extreme to say the least. It is ridiculous'.

'Dress up to this extent'? He doesn't seem to have a clue what he's talking about.

Anyway, when one mother - Michelle Davies - complained, she was told by the headteacher that this was a compulsory field trip and if her daughter did not go, it would be recorded as an unauthorised absence.

And because she didn't like that, it seems she went running to the papers to become a martyr to the cause.

Davies is quoted as saying:

'I wasn't having my daughter dressed in the Muslim way...

'I also fail to see how a three-hour trip to a mosque is of any educational value to a Catholic when she can learn about the Muslim faith in the classroom'.

Another parent, Kirsty Ashworth, whose daughter Charlie Sheen was due to attend, said: 'I send my daughter to an English-speaking Catholic school, so I don’t see why she should be forced to dress as a Muslim.'

Which, of course, she wasn't. Frankly, both parents sound as if an educational trip such as this would do both of them some good. Who really sounds like the intolerant party here?

Demanding she ditch her faith for Islam is the ultimate religious insult.

Errr, what? Where has the Star invented the line that she was being forced to 'ditch her faith'?

This was about schoolkids on a trip to a mosque covering their heads. How did it become 'demanding' someone convert to Islam?

That line really is an utter disgrace.

As several of the people leaving (surprisingly tolerant) comments on the Mail website point out, on their trips to synagogues, St Mark's Basilica in Venice and St Peter's in Rome and so on, coverings for shoulders, arms and/or heads were required attire for visitors. Most people remove hats without complaint when entering a Christian church. Yet there's no similar 'outrage' about that.

But because this involves Islam, there is.

The tabloids want to claim this is another example of political correctness gone mad, of Muslims dictating what the rest of 'us' can do, of Christians under attack.

What it's actually about is people being asked to show respect in a place of worship.

It hardly seems news that Moyles - like Jonathan Ross - might make some near-the-knuckle jokes on his programme, but the Mail is only interested in leaping on something minor to try and turn it into some 'BBC outrage'.

But by saying 'faces backlash' they seem to admitting that there isn't an actual 'backlash' they can report on. Usually they pick up some comments from the BBC messageboards or some other forum but none are quoted.

One, with the headline 'Environmentalist fined £4,000 after catching the wrong kind of crayfish' only revealed later in the article that he had in fact illegally caught 40 crayfish, and cooked some of them. If he'd been an immigrant, it's unlikely they would have been so sympathetic.

The vast majority of the orders ban dogs from fenced-off children's play areas - they do not ban dogs from the council's four Green Flag Award-winning parks which are popular with dog walkers, or from the vast majority of open space in the district.

The handful of village playing fields which are now subject to exclusion orders were included at the request of the various parish councils who felt such action was needed as dog fouling had become a serious problem in those localities.

Mr Michael Fawcett complained to the Press Complaints Commission through Kingsley Napley solicitors of London that an article was inaccurate when it stated that he had 'resigned from royal service after it had emerged he had taken 20% of the proceeds of unwanted royal gifts'.

An article (14 November 2009) referred to Michael Fawcett, the former valet of the Prince of Wales, resigning after it emerged he had received 20 per cent of the proceeds of sales of royal gifts. In fact, a report in 2003 found no evidence that Mr Fawcett sold royal gifts without authorisation or took commission on sales. We are happy to make this clear.

It is noticeable that both Dahl and Blair felt the paper did not respond to their complaints adequately. This is hardly surprising: when Littlejohn wrongly claimed Eastern Europeans committed most robberies in Britain, the Mail took six weeks to respond to a letter of complaint.

A quicker response was seen by the Ludlow Journal last week, which recalled all undelivered copies of the free newspaper after a picture caption went wrong:

a front-page picture story about a belltower captain called Tony Fuller who had organised a training event for young would-be bellringers.

Unfortunately the picture caption rendered the name 'Tony Fuller' as 'Tiny Fukker.'

81% of Britons know it exists; 58% think it would be improper for the PCC to just go wading into inquiries or judgments without being requested to do so. Twice as many want it to respond to complaints as think it should try to monitor everything; 51% reckon the present commission make-up of majority outsiders and senior journalists is right; 77% prefer a quick public apology to calling in the legal eagles for trials and fines.

Oh! and only 14% join the PCC's more vociferous critics in dubbing the commission's work 'ineffective'.

One question stood out immediately: why had the PCC used Toluna - which is not a member of the British Polling Council - to conduct the research? Its previous public attitude polls (in 2006 and 2008) had been done by Ipsos Mori.

Today, the PCC have published the full results (pdf) and some of the questions are dreadful because they are so leading.

Take question seven, for example:

Fining newspapers or magazines when they break the rules of the Code is likely to involve a lengthy legal process, whereas an agreement to publish an apology can be arrived at very quickly. If a newspaper or magazine had broken the rules in an article mentioning you, which would be most important to you?

Unsurprisingly, having been led to the water, the respondents drank - 77% favoured the quick apology.

In terms of the survey, a question about fines could, and should, be simple. But because the PCC and the majority of newspaper editors are against fines, they ask questions that give them the answer they want to justify that position.

Fining newspapers or magazines when they breach the agreed Code of Practice is likely to involve a lengthy legal process significantly delaying the publication of an apology. If a newspaper or magazine had breached the Code of Practice in an article mentioning you, which would be most important to you?

The publication of an immediate apology without the imposition of a fineORPublication of an apology and the imposition of a fine after a lengthy legal process

When do members of the public ever get apologies at all, let alone 'immediate' ones?

Back to the new survey and the PCC claims it shows 'Only 14% of the population feel that the PCC is ineffective'.

Well, yes and no. 14% did say the PCC was ineffective or very ineffective, compared to 46% who said it was effective or very effective. But 41% said 'no opinion' which is a large amount of don't knows - too many, you would think - to draw too many conclusions.

Two other questions raise eyebrows too.

Number three asked:

Imagine you have been featured in a newspaper or magazine article. A regulatory body feels that references to you may be inappropriate and in breach of the Code it enforces. It decides to publicise its views on this without contacting you first for information or consent. How would you view this unrequested decision by the regulatory body?

Question eight asked:

Newspapers (both national and regional) and magazines publish thousands of articles every day on and offline. There is an argument that the PCC should seek to monitor all articles in all press both online and offline for compliance with its Code. Another alternative is for the PCC to handle complaints when people wish to raise concerns about something they have read. Which do you think is a better solution?

But these two questions suggest these two issues are black and white when they aren't.

According to the former, either the PCC receives a complaint or it issues a statement without speaking to the subject of the story. It's totally false to pretend that those are the only options.

Moreover, it's not clear who has made the argument that the PCC should monitor every article going.

there was extensive and sustained media coverage of a number of suicides, self-evidently a cause for prompt action and close vigilance by the PCC, yet months were allowed to pass before Commission representatives visited the area.

Saturday, 1 May 2010

Why do our young worship 'celebs'? asks the Express on its front page today. That question comes just below a money-off offer for celeb magazine OK! and a picture of celeb Kerry Katona who hasn't actually been in the (serious) news recently. Or ever.

Why do our young worship 'celebs'?

The Express' proprietor is Richard Desmond, who also owns the Daily Star.

In the last week, the Daily Star's front pages lead stories have been about Kerry Katona, Jordan, Steven Gerrard and his wife, Jack Tweed, Kerry Katona, Jordan and (shock) Jordan.

OK! now dominates the British celebrity market and is on its way to becoming first for celebrity news worldwide.

New! Magazine is also part of the Desmond stable and is also full of cheap celebrity gossip and is another waste of good trees. The current issue of New! has Katona, Jordan and Victoria Beckham on the front.

And then there's Star magazine, which is also owned by Desmond. Its website has the tagline 'The hottest celeb website!' (they like their exclamation marks, don't they?). The current issue has Jordan, Beckham and Cheryl Cole on the cover. Desmond's company website says:

Star readers look for exclusive, unposed pictures that show celebrities enjoying life to the full in their own environment...Star is building sales as young women desert more conventional women's magazines for a celebrity-based alternative.